Search results

I have 64Gb of memory in my Laptop. As I write this with an RDP session open, 10 + tabs on DuckDuckGo browser, A PDF open in Chrome, Excel, Outlook, WhatsApp, SSMS, Sonos Desktop App, Teams, Notepad++, Toggle(time recording app) and a fairly chunky Access application open on a complicated form...

The question has changed and none of the answers seem to be what the OP wants. In fact, despite asking very specifically about how to avoid it reaching design limits he doesn't seem to want to know what those limits are, or what anyone here's experience has been with a very large project. I'm out.

And you are missing the point that the chances of you or anyone else developing an Access Front End that exceeded the size "Limits of the Environment" are probably smaller than me winning the Lotto. Twice. In a week. A 1Gb front end without any data stored locally would be something I would...

I will repeat what I said. The largest front end file I have ever worked on (NO data) was ~ 70Mb and it was a very large application that had numerous sections, invoicing, inventory, contract management, service call management, and workshop repair management. We could have easily split...

What happens if you click New in the Select data source? I think it will give you an option to use any of your existing ODBC Sources to create a new Machine Data Source

I have a system that we took over that had been continuously developed for 20 years. It has a awful lot of forms, queries, and reports but is still only 30Mb as a front end including quite a lot of temporary local tables. We still develop new functionality almost every couple of months, but...

And what is the error and what line is it occurring on?

That code will run Call CmdStockTransfers_Click No matter if the report is printed or not ? I'm pretty sure that isn't your intention.

If this is in SQL server you could write a stored procedure to return those records exactly as you want them formatted and simply export it, after putting in the headers. SQL Servers windowing functions would make this very simple, and allow you to hide the repeating data.

@Pat I use RDP for our LAN work servers all the time. It's the normal way of getting to them, it's not reserved for WAN use, I would say that is more the exception than the rule. Most of our servers don't have a keyboard or a monitor even attached, RDP is the only way to administer them.

If that's a saved Query then If DCount("*","MyQuery") = 0 Then ' You have no records MsgBox"No Data" Exit Sub End iF '''' Open your report

Check your count of records returned by the source query for your report before trying to print it. If it's zero don't try and print it, and don't call your other routines.

Access thinks a SQL View is a linked table, and pretty much treats it as such. It requires the PK to be identified so that you can edit it. You can ignore the request to "Identify a Primary Key" when you link it, and it won't matter, it will just be read only. However, if you incorrectly set...

You can see them in design view of the Linked View. If you want to see them in code have a look at the answers here: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2536955/retrieve-list-of-indexes-in-an-access-database

You can't store an Access backend on the cloud and have it work with any reliability whatsoever. As George has pointed out you will, ideally, need to migrate the backend data to a different platform that your Access front end can talk to, with allowing for making things work over an WAN...

Yes a cross tab can probably do what you want. Pull the fields you want into the query designer. (As per your list above) Change the query type to crosstab In the total selection select Group By for the emp_Id and Module In the total selection for the DateCompleted select Max In the crosstab...

I think you are making that overly complicated. Normally you would simply look that price up based on the part code (UPC?) and the upper and lower price banding and possibly the effective date. If you keep an Lower and Upper qty figure you can use a query join on it to speed up the process...

There is a finite number of fields for a table, I believe it is 254. so you still have some head room. However if you get close to or above 127 fields and try and do anything clever involving all of those fields, because of the way access works it starts to hit the 254 field limit as it creates...

I suspect 1 Billion Excel users might have something to say about that... They have possibly picked up on the fact that New Outlook doesn't support it, and added that up 2+2 = 5

I get that, but the way this is worded, appears to be a copy to be edited for no obvious end goal. A copy of record as a new record to be updated is not what was described.